Attend ACI's 8th Annual Summit on Life Sciences IP Due Diligence, and join IP counsel from across the life sciences industry to benchmark your diligence strategies, strengthen portfolio valuation approaches, and stay ahead of...more
The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury...more
A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the...more
On June 16, in Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court on multiple grounds, including § 101 patent eligibility and trial procedure, in vacating infringement...more
On April 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (No. 23-2312), issued on April 30, 2025, upholding the invalidation of Finitiv Inc.’s (“Finitiv”) mobile wallet patents related...more
Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Apr. 30, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Taranto and Stark. Fintiv sued PayPal for infringement of four patents directed to “cloud-based...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more
Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that the terms “payment...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus...more
It's been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. (If interested, here's an alert about what's kept me away: a CFAA trial we wrapped up in late July.) But I am back, so let's look at the latest on the Section...more
There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Appeals Review Panel (“the Panel”) recently clarified that means-plus-function claims do not require that the specification disclose equivalents. See Ex parte...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
On March 18, 2024, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its Examiners reminding them of the resources and proper analysis for interpreting limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which are commonly referred to as...more
On March 18, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memorandum to patent examiners addressing means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations and how to clearly articulate, in the prosecution...more
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials recently reiterated to all patent examiners that they must provide clear, consistent analysis regarding means-plus-function and step-plus-function limitations. ...more
Means-plus-function claim elements can be a sticky wicket during an inter partes review, to borrow a phrase from the cricket lovers out there. These are claim elements drafted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or its predecessor...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that in the context of construing computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, if the specification discloses some arguable algorithm, even if a party...more
When a claim term is construed as a means plus function limitation, the recited “means” is limited to only the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function, and a limited range of...more
The Federal Circuit issued two cases this week providing more clarity to when a functional claim feature should be considered a de facto means-plus-function claim that requires structural detail to meet the indefiniteness...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Reversing a district court finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence that the challenged claim...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
Last week wrapped up a busy January for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments returned to a telephonic format, and arguments next month will be by video (although still audio-only for the public). As the month is now in the...more
In a new precedential Federal Circuit decision, Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. ITC, that impacts both patent prosecutors and litigators, the court again demonstrated the reach of its recent expansion of language that...more